Maciej,
This is something with which I agree but what I was wondering about is
something quite narrow in scope. I take it for granted that folk
wouldn't be doing this work if they were not interested and am not
fluent in many languages but am aware that they are out there and that
others are fluent in languages both singly and multiply that I am not.
What actually mystifies me and I've been following every nuounce of
the conversation over a long span on several lists is that there has
not been shown to be anything satisfactorily demonstrated to replace
what can be and has been used as such an accessibility enhancing
attribute as @summary. I'm not saying that ideas are not welcomed or
discouraged but that there are some hard facts that need to be
considered if we are ever going to move toward striking @summary from
need.
On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Hi David,
On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:24 AM, David Poehlman wrote:
> in that event, it can be ignored, however, one does wonder why the
> resistance to something so obviously benefitial is so *strong*.
I think the disagreement is over whether summary is, on the whole,
beneficial, and whether other approaches might be more beneficial to
all users. Your framing of the disagreement assumes the answer, and
makes it sound like those who disagree with your technical position
hate accessibility. Even though it is phrased more courteously than
Robert's statement, I don't think it's helpful to discussion.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on summary. But it
seems that discussion of accessibility features often gets very
emotional and heated. I think nearly all of us in this group want to
see a Web that is accessible to everyone. What we sometimes disagree
on are the best means to achieve these goals. So let's try to think
like this: "Person X has a different idea of how to best achieve
universal access, how can I persuade them to my point of view? Or do
they perhaps have a good point?" instead of like this: "Why is person
X against accessibility?" That's the way we try to discuss other
technical issues, even though often equally important goals are at
stake. And that gives us the best chance of coming up with good
solutions.
Regards,
Maciej
>
>
> On Feb 25, 2009, at 9:20 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> Robert J Burns wrote:
>> I say malicious since the continued repetition of the fallacious
>> arguments seem directed at ensuring such information is not made
>> available to visually and cognitively disabled users.
>
> The above statement is neither productive nor acceptable.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> --
> Jonnie Appleseed
> with his
> Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
> reducing technology's disabilities
> one byte at a time
>
--
Jonnie Appleseed
with his
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
reducing technology's disabilities
one byte at a time